Replies

I tend to agree with you here. It is a tough one but I will side with the victim of physical assault given the nature of the encounter. A larger man, not party to the conversation, comes from inside the store to aggressively assault the guy.

Was is it a clear cut situation worth killing someone over? Perhaps not but I will defer to the assault victim because there are innumerable ways in which this scenario could have played out. Those scenarios includes ones in which the victim is dead so I side with the victim. He was not physical, as far as I can tell, only verbal and sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you.

Furthermore, with these types of stories I try to put myself in the situation. Having had Hermia surgery less than 90 days ago, but outwardly appearing fine, and having a bad back a push like that from a larger man would have seriously impeded my ability to get up and respond. Therefore, were the STG guy to be brought up on charges and I were on the jury he would walk.

I also can see both sides. If the shooter were charged and I were the prosecutor, I'd show the jury the video and argue that the young guy backed away when he saw the gun and was no longer a threat; and that the older guy shot him because his blood was up and he wanted to hit back. That could be manslaughter.

That said, it's too bad that with a certain subculture in our society, there's a non-trivial chance that any verbal disagreement will escalate to violence. You should be able to point out that a person is misusing a handicapped space without getting physically attacked and having to make a snap decision about lethal force that will follow you the rest of your life.